Talk:Star Trek (2009)
I don't see any reason to link the entire cast list -- we generally don't make articles about actors unless they author, appear in a video game or do a book voiceover -- which, to my knowledge, no one in this film has yet done. we should remove links to Chris Pine, Winona Ryder, etc... -- Captain MKB 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Series I've noticed a few articles citing this with the series ST - surely this is TOS, mgiht be new actors, shiny new effects, but it's the same characters and setting. --8of5 13:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Agreed -- I'm fixing the links I wrote incorrectly.. -- Captain MKB 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Page name The current page name seems to exclude the novelization and audiobook that this page also covers, any suggests for something a little more inclusive? Best I can think of is Star Trek (2009) --8of5 13:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) : I like that -- I created the redirect already, and support the move. -- Captain MKB 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::So what is the novelization under? I'm reading it next. – AT2Howell 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC) :The film and the novel will be on this page, just as all our movie series are set up. -- Captain MKB 21:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Removed The following text was removed, it all seems pretty garbled and poorly formed: :All the six original TOS films are referenced in little ways. Spock asks for permission to enter the bridge. Creatures handled by tongs to influence a person are used. Spock tells Kirk he is, and always has been, his friend. Vulcan and it's statues are seen. Kirk's forehead is smacked on a lintel. Emphasis on red blobs matches Klingon blood. :''The movie gives little in the way of explicit dates. Giving dates to the film must be done via sorting out random statements in it, plus using one's own knowledge of the franchise's history. The film starts with James T. Kirk being born, placing this on March 22, 2233 as per In a Mirror, Darkly, Spectre, et. al.. The death of George Samuel Kirk, Sr. that day conflicts with Crisis on Centaurus and Enterprise: The First Adventure, BUT we will later see this doesn't matter. A brief scene when Kirk is roughly fourteen would therefore be in 2247. Kirk enrols in [Academy in 2250 as per The Apple, etc.. and there is then a caption saying THREE YEARS LATER, making 2253. At some point during the next few scenes, we must leap to 2262, because Pavel Chekov tells us he is 17. Chekov was born in 2245 as per Who Mourns for Adonais?. This is the year the "present" remains in, conflicting with the 2263 date from Enterprise: The First Adventure. The future scenes - where Spock is from, are given as "291 years" later. That would be 2383, four years after Star Trek: Nemesis. HOWEVER, computer-given stardates in the film seem to use fandom-ones - i.e. 9/5/2009 being 0905.09 - and Spock's machine says the year - by stating it as a stardate - is 2387. Also, Spock informs Kirk that he is from a 129 years in the future, and if you minus that from 2387, you get the date of 2258. Since 2233, it is a new timeline, so everything from the old one is not correct, well at least adjusted and changed. Now, the obvious: How is someone bumping their head an homage to a previous movie? Which movie? Also, which movie would the "enter the bridge" part come from? If these things are to be added, they should be clear and make sense. How does red matter resemble Klingon blood? Klingon blood is purple, not red. Also, the stardates are referenced often, so we DO have explicit dates. They are of a simple formula which is completely misrepresented by this text. Also, this text assumes some things that are clearly not true -- Kirk didn't enter the fleet on the same date he did in the old reality, obviously, etc. -- Captain MKB 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) page for the timeline I think a page detailing the alternate timeline in this film would be useful, but I'm stuck for a name, we have at least one precedent in an alternate timeline page using the original source title in the Yesterday's Enterprise timeline page, however I feel the title of the film might make that a little confusing ("Star Trek timeline" could mean anything) and would prefer to keep it in-universe. MA have gone with "Alternate reality" however there are lots of alternate realities so I'm not taken by that either. So any suggestions? We could do with establishing a system for describing major alternate timelines, as we have a few. My suggestion would be something along the lines of "Alternate timeline (Nero, 2233)", which is then adaptable for other timeline pages "Alternate timeline (cause, date of divergence)". --8of5 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :I'm starting to call the two universes Will and Tom (think fast). :-) :That wouldn't work here, of course. Calling it something like the "Star Trek (2009) timeline" would eventually be obsolete and just as confusing as just plain ol' "Star Trek timeline." Using the (Nero, 2233) disambiguator makes sense to ''me, but would also be potentially confusing to new users. Perhaps "Neroverse" or "Abramsverse"? Something pithy that new users might be able to pick up on quickly. Or just "new continuity." -- 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I will argue to the death against any "pithy" name that ends with "verse". I also don't like anything that strays too far outside of POV. Maybe have a redirect structure with the standardized name you suggest, and a simpler variation like "Nero's timeline", with one leading to the other. -- Captain MKB 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Well, "Yesterday's Enterprise timeline" isn't really in POV, either... -- 18:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :This is true -- but at least it isn't called the "Tashaverse"! -- Captain MKB 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I agree, it's a little simplistic, but then, so is the new film. The entire point of it is to be accessible for newcomers to the franchise, and if those newbies show up here, we should attempt to be as least confusing as possible. "New continuity" might be the best solution for now, until Pocket or IDW or some other licensee coins a term. -- 19:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that necessarily services the needs of the wiki, we have Loads of alternate timelines. New users coming from the new movie are going have a headache here whatever we do - if your knowledge of Trek comes just from the new movie and come in here looking for Kirk, McCoy etc then you'll still going to have to navigate through the "prime" universe stuff to find them. Unfortunately for the new-user point of view this new movie is a minority subject amongst our hundreds of sources and subjects. Anywho, I wouldn't say "alternate timeline (Nero, 2233)" is that confusing, it still has Nero in the title which will be something identifiable to new users, while also using descriptive words and none abstract terms - "new continuity" assumes knowledge of the previously existing universe. Re:Yesterday's Enterprise timeline, if we settle on a good system we can always move it: "alternate timeline (Enterprise-C, 2366)" --8of5 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :Thoughts: :*First off, I agree with regularizing links to timelines as you suggest. maybe use "alternate reality" like they did in the film? link to "alternate reality (NAME, DATE)" :*Second -- we could incorporate this into a page header template (as AT2Howell suggested) and have it automatically link to the page to make it more introductory to navigating users, by appearing at the top of both the regular and alternate pages. -- Captain MKB 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Was too busy being amused by the very obvious exposition to notice the exact wording, but sure either works for me. Not quite sure what you're describing by this page header, care to expand? --8of5 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by that, either, Mike. And the line (from Uhura) was "An alternate reality." They're using that on Memory Alpha, as well. As are we, apparently: . -- 21:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::I've expanded my comments above -- I hit save in a hurry as I was already writing some code also. -- Captain MKB 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :See Pavel Chekov for a counterpart disambiguation link that automatically links to this format... -- Captain MKB 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, that sort thing, yep I agree we should have links like that at the top of pages. I'm not entirely sure we're going to need a page for every character in every reality though, as I suggested here, I think a structure of "prime" page (the existing character and subject pages) and alternates (plural, for all alternate universes) would be best. While the new movie timeline is likely to be considered an important one we do have multiple alternate realities for most of the major (and many minor) characters. I would think what would be quite nice is a single template that could generate a text something like this: :This page details CHARACTER NAME in the primary universe, for CHARACTER NAME in other universes see CHARACTER NAME (alternate realities) I would suggest those alternate universes pages for minor characters also include the mirror universes, however for major characters that would be overwhelming so we would have a general alternate realities page and a special mirror universe page too. Maybe the same temple could have an option to turn on an addition mirror link to expand that to something like: :This page details CHARACTER NAME in the primary universe, for CHARACTER NAME in other universes see CHARACTER NAME (alternate realities), and for the mirror universes see CHARACTER NAME (mirror).''--8of5 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I see where you're going with this, but again, I believe that the major characters/ships/etc from the new film have their own page, like the Mirror characters. That's in the interest of new fans, as well as because the film's timeline will be a predominant one from this point on, not just a one-off. The sequel has already been greenlit, and we know there will be tie-ins coming. I propose: :*The prime universe character pages remain as they are: James T. Kirk, Spock, etc. :*The major characters in the new film be given their own pages: "James T. Kirk (alternate reality)" (or whatever suffix the community decides on, with newbie-accessible redirects, like "James T. Kirk (Neroverse)" or "Spock (Abramsverse)" or "Hikaru Sulu (2009)" :It's important that data for the new film be as stand-alone and easy-to-find as possible. -- 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Ok then: :This page details NAME in the primary universe; for NAME in the mirror universe see NAME (mirror); for the NAME in the alternate reality created by Nero's temporal incursion see NAME (alternate reality); for the NAME in all other alternate universes see NAME (alternates). I've made that into this template: Template:Alternate counterparts, which has the option to toggle which ever combination of different universe links is necessary for each subject. --8of5 11:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Chronology I'd like to get the film/book on the chronology but have problem: The novelization opens with Spock's birth, and also establishes that in the bullying sequence he is eleven, which makes some nice easy maths, except - Our pages list Spock as being born in 2230, but MA say 2232, so which is it? And what's the source? Also, any suggestions for the placement of young-Kirk stealing the car (I thought maybe make this a parallel event with young Spock being bullied if it fits?), and Spock turning down going to the Vulcan Science Academy? --8of5 02:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :MA's Spock page has this discussion of how the 2232 date was derived. Our source appears to be the OkudaChron.--Emperorkalan 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Which to me seems a better source than MA maths, 2230 it is! --8of5 13:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Ranks Do we really need this section? If someone must list the ranks and titles, can't they just go under "other"? – AT2Howell 19:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Universities While we're at it, is a University reference a location or an organization? – AT2Howell 19:15, October 16, 2009 (UTC) :I'd say it would depend on the context of the reference, whether you're talking generally about say having a qualification from said institution, or about visiting the location of the campus. Or both. --8of5 23:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC) Summary I finally finished the summary. Is it too long and detailed? Of course, it's desirable to include the passages unique to the book, and therefore the summary as a whole has to be detailed enough to justify their inclusion. Also, should "Debrune Teral'n" and "Mandana" appear in the References section, given that they're mentioned but not named in the book? Gildir 19:32, November 3, 2009 (UTC) :I have regretfully partially reverted an edit by 24.22.40.119 to the summary of chapter V. The summary is of the Alan Dean Foster novelization, not the movie, and therefore the scene aboard the Narada should appear at the end of the chapter. Also, Nero and the Narada are identified by name at this point in the summary because this is the first time they are named in the book. Gildir 19:49, November 8, 2009 (UTC) It feels a little long, but I think that's because of the formatting rather than the content - ie using subheading for each chapter really spaces it out. Which relates to another issue: The page and summary are for both the movie and novelization, so I feel having the summary divided into the novelizations chapters is... not quite right? I was planning on doing a summary myself, didn't get round to it before you, but the approach I was planning to take was to divide it into broad narrative chunks, something like: "Attack on the Kelvin", "Troubled Youth", "Starfleet Academy", "Conflict at Vulcan", "Marooned on Delta Vega", etc... thus allowing both the novel and movie (and comic once it comes out) to input information without one being dominant. On a similar note, when there are conflicts between sources, such as there still being ships fighting when the Enterprise arrives in the novel, I think it would be better to glaze over them in summary, omitting the specific detail in favour of the shared narrative, and then detail the discontinuity in the appendices. And yes the referenced items should be included, while they weren't named they are visually or contextually referenced and relevant to the page. --8of5 14:24, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for your thoughts, 8of5. Since this is the Wiki for licensed, non-canon material, I had assumed that the summary should be of the novelization, and that there will be a separate article for the comic with a summary of that version. (Someone who wants to read a summary of the movie can click on the link to the Memory Alpha article.) Similarly, there are separate articles for the Star Trek: The Motion Picture novel and comic, but until recently they had the same incomplete summary, which was evidently based on the comic; I expanded the summary in the novel's article into more of a summary of the novel, specifically. Does anyone know the standard way Memory Beta handles these distinctions? Gildir 22:53, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::Since the comic, novel and movie all have the same basic story, we usually have only one summary, with any issues that occur in the summary process handled as background notes, separately. This article here you are editing is for both the novel and the movie. The comic will probably be separated to issues which can then have their own summaries each. ::The only reason The Motion Picture was split up was because each comic issue had a separate printing, meaning that version of the summary would be in three parts. Conversely, the summary on The Search for Spock is about all three -- comic, novel and movie.. -- Captain MKB 23:14, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :What Mike said, and on "this is the Wiki for licensed, non-canon material" and "the standard way Memory Beta handles these distinctions". It is long standing policy, per the same basic rules of Star Trek production, that canon material always takes precedence; no matter how much a non-canon source has to say on a subject, if canon says something contradictory then it is canon that is right. That's not to say we don’t use canon-contradicted information, but we have to be careful and clever with it to properly integrate it into the database and explain the contradictory nature of its existence. :In this case there's just the one really contradictory piece of information I can think of; how the battle at Vulcan plays out. Otherwise all the extra bits in the novelization can be seamlessly integrated into a summary that also summarises the film accurately. On a more personal note, I generally think it's a bad idea to summarise using chapters as sub-headings too; as you can see on the summaries you (Gildir) have recently (and wonderfully, summaries are a big gap on a lot of articles) added, doing it in that format just leads to an overwhelming number of very small subsections, often just a single paragraph. When a summary section can work just as well with no sub-headings at all, or a very few headings that divide the summary into the broad areas of the narrative. --8of5 00:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC) Removed sections I removed the following background note as I don’t see anything about how the katric arc was shown in the film at odds with its description in the book. And if there is any contradiction is should be explained by the background note not merely eluded too. Same issue with the Enterprise reference: I know what it's alluding too, the apparent destruction of Surak's katra which obviously contradicts it being held in the arc later here, but that isn’t explained at all (and forgetting for the moment that the Enterprise novel came out after this one…)! :"The novel's explanation of the nature of the "katric ark" -- that it contains the soul of Surak -- seems somewhat at odds with the use of that term in the film. This change helps tie in the story with , but results in an apparent contradiction with ." I also removed this sections about DVDs, as it’s not the stuff we normally tend to cover: :" DVD and Blueray Releases :Star Trek was released on 1- and 2-disk DVD and on Blueray. Special in-pack premiums exist for the 2-disk DVD and the Blueray editions. :In Australia, Germany and at Target retail stores in the United States a model of the new Enterprise was included. The saucer housed the disks. This was included with the 2-disk DVD collection and the 3-disk DVD and Blueray combo pack. The model is 9 pieces: upper and lower saucer, neck, secondary hull, 2 wings, 2 nacelles, and 1 stand. Note that once assembled the model should not be disassembled because it will break. :At Best Buy retail stores the Blueray packs included a set of four metal badges from the film based on all four worn on the uniforms (Command, Sciences, Engineering, and Medical). :The single disk DVD included very little bonus material. The two disk DVD included deleted scenes, behind the scenes features, a gag reel, a commentary track, a playable X-Box Star Trek demo, and a digital copy of the movie for media player." And this note about the jellyfish: "In the novel the Jellyfish is described as of Vulcan design, whereas in it was designed by Geordi La Forge." Which I feel would be more appropriate background info for the article on the ship, if it needs to exist at all, I don’t see why La forge can’t work on a Vulcan sponsored design? --8of5 00:30, September 2, 2010 (UTC) :What I was thinking of was Spock's statement in the film that his parents and the other elders would be "in the katric ark", i.e. the katric ark is the large underground chamber they're in, not a smaller object containing Surak's katra. As for The Romulan War, I was treading carefully to avoid spoiling the ending of that book for people who hadn't read it -- indeed, I held off for months on adding that phrase to this article for this reason. However, you may be right that it's better to omit the passages in question altogether. Gildir 21:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Well if the original note had explained that sort of detailed analysis it would have made a lot more sense hmm? However, if you double check the novelization you will find Spock refers to them being in the ark, the place, as well as surrounding the ark, the object containing Surak's katra. Which tallys with the film, they are in the large chamber, near to (still quite large) artifact. Evidentially the katric arc refers to both the room and the artifact. --8of5 22:31, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Mea culpa... Thank you for your attention to detail, 8of5. The article continues to be improved by your work. Gildir 19:53, September 8, 2010 (UTC)